Subject: Re: [hrpc] Protocol/Architecture consideration of Attribution & right of legal remedy (was: Re: I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-03.txt)

From: Pranesh Prakash <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 22:35:21 +0530

Amelia Andersdotter <[email-masked]> [2019-06-12 | 15:43:39 +0530]:
> Anonymity is a human right, and
> can be crucial for freedom of expression, whistleblowing or criticism.

+1 to what Niels stated.

> Normally, human rights are obligations on governments and duties on
> companies to respect individuals. The attribution problem, however,
> seems to me to arise when governments or companies find that individuals
> have not respected their rights, or when individuals have not respected
> other individuals.

Most discussions of international human rights law today include 
"positive" rights (i.e., obligations on governments to protect against 
human rights abuses, rather than merely obligations to refrain from 
committing such abuses).  Given this, I feel the "attribution problem" 
falls squarely within the fold of these discussions.

Further, the ICCPR requires *legal* prohibition of specific kinds of 
speech (which can broadly be called hate speech).  A legal prohibition 
is not really useful unless there can be prosecution.  Thus, imaginably, 
there is a duty upon signatories to prosecute those engaged in speech 
that violates Art. 20(2) of the ICCPR, and that can only begin with 
attribution.

The Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women in a 2018 report[1] notes:

> States have a human rights obligation to ensure that both State and non-State agents refrain from engaging in any act of discrimination or violence against women. States have a direct responsibility concerning violence perpetrated by agents of the State itself. They also have due diligence obligations to prevent, investigate and punish acts of violence against women committed by private companies, such as Internet intermediaries, in accordance with article 2 (e) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. 

and

> According to article 4 (c) of the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, States should exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish acts of violence against women

Investigation and punishment of online violence against women would, 
presumably, have a link to attribution, not just in terms of corporate 
actors and intermediaries but those who have committed the violence, who 
are often individuals.

If we are thinking about human rights concerns, then attribution would 
impact it.

  [1]: http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/HRC/38/47&Lang=E

Niels Ten Oever <[email-masked]> [2019-06-12 | 16:08:34 +0530]:
 > accountability for the powerful, and protection for the individual.

While I broadly agree with this (for instance, I feel that domain name 
registration information should be public for non-individuals), I'm not 
sure how it applies in this case.  A legal remedy for rights violations 
lies not just against powerful corporations, and the obligation of the 
State is not limited to punishing corporations.

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Fellow, Centre for Internet and Society
tel:+91 80 40926283   | xmpp:[email-masked]
https://cis-india.org | https://twitter.com/pranesh